Foundation of Misery : The Nehruvian Era, Part-II

Poverty-Perpetuating Socialism,

‘Secularism’ & All That

Rajnikant Puranik

Categories: Non-fiction, History

Available at Amazon and Pothi.com

For all books by the Author, their details, and from where to procure them,

please check

www.rkpbooks.com

To the fond memory of my late parents

Shrimati Shakuntala and

Shri Laxminarayan Puranik

- - -

Thanks to

Devbala, Shrikant Bhaisaab, Akhil Chandra, Manasi, Manini

for encouragement and help.

form or by any means, whether electronic/digital or print or mechanical/physical, or stored in an

information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner,

that is, the author, except as permitted by law. However, extracts up to a total of 1,000 words may be

quoted without seeking any permission, but with due acknowledgement of the source. For

permission, please write to rkpuranik@gmail.com .

Preface

It has been said that the road to hell is often paved with best intentions,

and despite the probable best intentions, ‘The Nehruvian Era, 1947–64’

unfortunately laid the firm foundations of India’s misery. The same are

detailed in this two-part book.

This is the second part of the two-part book on the Nehruvian era

(1947–64). Part-I covered the Kashmir botch-up; erasure of Tibet as a

nation; the Himalayan blunder of the India-China war; prevention of

Pakistan-II by integration of the Hyderabad Princely State into India by

Sardar Patel, despite Nehru’s muddle-headedness; and the failed foreign

and external security policies of Nehru. This part covers the rest, followed

by evaluation of the Nehruvian era.

For a fair and objective evaluation of the Nehruvian era, the book adopts

a set of rules, the “dos” and the “don’ts”:

Rule-1 (Dos). When evaluating a national leader, evaluate his or her

contribution to the nation on a set of vital parameters, for example, GDP,

Per-Capita Income, Relationship with Neighbours, Internal Security

Position, External Security Position, Literacy Level, and so on. Determine

those set of parameters at the start of the tenure of that leader, and also at

the end of his or her tenure. Check the difference.

Rule-2 (Dos). The above, by itself, is not sufficient. Some progress

would anyway be made with the passage of time. The point is whether the

progress was as much as it could or should have been. For this, also

determine a set of developing, but fast-growing countries against whom you

would like to benchmark your performance. Evaluate the progress of those

countries for the same period. Compare.

Rule-3 (Don’ts). Do not mix the personal with the professional or the

political. There is little point offsetting poor political performance against

good personal traits, and vice versa.

Rule-4 (Don’ts). Greatness has nothing to do with popularity—media

can be managed, popularity can be purchased, general public can be

manipulated and led up the garden path. Nor has greatness anything to do

with ruling for a long time. The point is, what you did for the people and

the country. If you did little, you actually wasted the precious time of the

people and the country.

Rule-5 (Don’ts). Don’t go by generalised descriptions or attributes that

don’t measure the real comparative position on the ground. For example,

statements like, “He was a great democrat, thoroughly secular, highly

honest, scientific-minded person who loved children and gave his all to the

nation,” don’t help the purpose of evaluation.

Rule-6 (Don’ts). Don’t go by what the person wrote or spoke or claimed.

A person may talk big on lofty ideals and make grand claims, but the real

test is what concrete difference he made to the nation and to the lives of

people.

Unless a leader scores high as per rules 1 and 2, he or she cannot be

adjudged as great. This is quite logical. You do not evaluate Sachin

Tendulkar's cricket on his personal goodness, you evaluate it on his

performance on the field, on runs scored—not in isolation or as an absolute,

but in comparison with others. You evaluate Ratan Tata or Mukesh Ambani

or Narayan Murthy by evaluating the performance of the companies they

are heading. If the companies are doing well, you give credit to them. But,

rare is a case where a company does badly or goes into bankruptcy, and you

still evaluate the person heading it as good and competent. Strangely, this

common sense approach goes for a toss when you try to evaluate a political

leader.

This book looks into the concrete aspects of India after independence

during the Nehruvian era to evaluate Nehru and the Nehruvian era. The

book does not trouble itself with the personal side of Nehru like how he

looked or his sartorial style or with other irrelevant issues.

— Rajnikant Puranik

A Note on Citations & Bibliography

Citations are given as super-scripts in the text, such as {Azad/128}.

Citation Syntax & Examples

{Source-Abbreviation/Page-Number}

e.g. {Azad/128} = Azad, Page 128

{Source-Abbreviation/Volume-Number/Page-Number}

e.g. {CWMG/V-58/221} = CWMG, Volume-58, Page 221

{Source-Abbreviation} … for URLs (articles on the web), and for digital

books (including Kindle-Books), that are searchable, where location or

page-number may not be given.

e.g. {VPM2}, {URL15}

{Source-Abbreviation/Location-Number}… for Kindle Books

e.g. {VPM2}, {VPM2/L-2901}

Example from Bibliography Table at the end of this Book

Azad B Maulana Abul Kalam Azad—India Wins Freedom.

Orient Longman. New Delhi. 2004

CWMG D,

Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. Vol. 1 to 98.

http://gandhiserve.org/e/cwmg/cwmg.htm

URL15 U Article ‘Nehru vs Patel: Ideological Rift, Hardly a

Trivial One. Rakesh Sinha, Sunday Express. 10-Nov-

2013.

www.pressreader.com/india/sunday-

express8291/20131110/282033324959792

VPM2 K,

V.P. Menon—The Transfer of Power in India. Orient

Longman. Chennai. (1957) 1997.

books.google.co.in/books?id=FY5gI7SGU20C

The second column above gives the nature of the source: B=paper Book,

D=Digital Book/eBook other than Kindle, K=Kindle eBook, U=URL of

Document/Article on Web, W=Website, Y=YouTube.

 
Table of Contents
 
{ 1 } Nehru’s Poverty-Perpetuating Socialism
{ 2 } Debilitating Babudom & Corruption
{ 3 } Harvesting Misery, thanks to Nehruvianism
{ 4 } Internal Policies
{ 5 } Nehru’s “Secularism”
{ 6 } Mental & Cultural Slavery
{ 7 } Inexplicable Ways
{ 8 } Nehru’s Unjust Anointment as PM
{ 9 } Dictatorial, Feudal & ‘Dynacratic’
{ 10 } Fault Lines
{ 11 } Summarising the “Invention”
Bibliography
 
 

 
Detailed Table of Contents
 
Preface
A Note on Citations & Bibliography
Table of Contents
Detailed Table of Contents
{ 1 } Nehru’s Poverty-Perpetuating Socialism
Poverty & Prosperity: The Various Aspects
Do climate, geography, race, ... matter?
India a first-world country by 1980?
“Unless people change... can’t progress!” Argument
Spurious Reasons for India’s Failure
Unless “people with character”, can’t take off!
What is required is “the spirit of sacrifice”!
“Scientific” Socialism a Contradiction in Terms!
Why things not worked out before independence?
Socialism benefits only the vested interests.
Why socialism remains popular?
Predominance of Leftist Claptrap
Democracy and Socialism: Are they compatible?
What to follow? Socialism, Capitalism, Gandhiism...
Capitalism evolved organically, Others are Artificial
Constructs.
Nehruvian Socialistic Suicide
Why Persist with the Failed Model?
What They Said of Nehru & Socialism
Nehruvian (and NOT ‘Hindu’) Rate of Growth
Nehru + Socialists vs. Sardar Patel & Others
{ 2 } Debilitating Babudom & Corruption
The Curse of Babudom
Corruption in the “Good” Old Days
Nepotism in the “Good” Old Days
{ 3 } Harvesting Misery, thanks to Nehruvianism

{ 4 } Internal Policies
Mismanagement & Neglect of the Northeast
Northeast thanks to Bordoloi
Migration Politics
Too Many States!
Gross Mismanagement
Reorganisation of States
Safety of Minorities, Dalits & Vulnerable Sections
{ 5 } Nehru’s “Secularism”
What is Secularism?
Religious Appeasement
Illustrative Cases of Nehru’s Appeasement
Ignorance & Arrogance
Ignoring Illegal Proselytization
{ 6 } Mental & Cultural Slavery
Nehru : “the last Englishman to rule India”
Monuments to Slavishness
Brown Inferiorists
Motilal-Tribe vs. Rao-Tribe
Lordly Ways
That Strange Indian Animal: VIP and VVIP
Distortions of Indian History
Glimpses of Distortions of History
The Language Issue
{ 7 } Inexplicable Ways
Netaji Subhas Mystery
Nehru & Netaji’s Stolen War Chest
Belated Bharat Ratnas
Ill-Treatment of Others
Dalits & the Greatest Indian After Gandhi
The Fair Ladies
Sardar’s Daughter
{ 8 } Nehru’s Unjust Anointment as PM
{ 9 } Dictatorial, Feudal & ‘Dynacratic’
Undemocratic, Dictatorial & Feudal Tendencies

Restricting Freedom of Expression (FoE)
Dynasty First
Not Limiting the Term of the PM
Not Appointing a Successor
Taken Shame Out of Dynacracy
Ensuring Self-Publicity & Dynastic Recall
Election Funding & Vote-Bank Politics
{ 10 } Fault Lines
Leadership Weaknesses
Administrative Weaknesses
Arrogant, Conceited & Full of Hubris
‘Intellectualism’, Academics, Speeches & Writings
{ 11 } Summarising the “Invention”
Evaluating a Leader : The Right Approach
Evaluating Nehru
Posers : Alternate Evaluation
Squandered Once-in-a-lifetime Opportunity
Leadership & Administrative Weaknesses
Dreamer & an Idealist?
Innovative Counterfactuals
“Greatness” by Definition
Didn’t have it in him…
Required: deNehrufication and deDynastification!
Bibliography

{ 1 }

Nehru’s Poverty-Perpetuating Socialism

POVERTY & PROSPERITY: THE VARIOUS ASPECTS

Poor countries are poor because those who have power

make choices that create poverty.

—Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson

DO CLIMATE, GEOGRAPHY, RACE, ... MATTER?

Are one or more of these the factors that make a country poor or

prosperous: climate, geography, location, abundance of natural resources,

race, history, “type of people”, “character of people”?

No. None of these.

Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson in their book ‘Why Nations Fail :

The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty’ demonstrate, inter alia, that

climate, geography, location, history, race, “type” of people are NOT the

reasons a country is rich or poor.

They take examples of neighbouring countries with identical climate,

geography, location, history, race and “type” of people, where one-side is

poor and the other prosperous: Mexico and the states of the US bordering it

like Texas; North Korea and South Korea; Haiti and the Dominican

Republic in the Caribbean region. One can add to these comparisons the

Mainland China till the early eighties versus Taiwan; and Malaysia versus

Singapore.

The determining factor, the authors say, are the institutions: human-

made systems, rules and regulations, and how they are implemented on the

ground. ‘Extractive Institutions’ cause poverty and misery, while ‘Inclusive

Institutions’ lead to prosperity and freedom.

What are extractive institutions? Characteristics of extractive economic

institutions are: lack of law and order, insecure property rights, entry

barriers and regulations preventing functioning of markets and creating a

non-level-playing field. Characteristics of extractive political institutions

are: concentrating of power in the hands of a few without constraints,

checks and balances or rule of law. Extractive institutions exist because

there are powerful vested interests who stand to lose if the institutions were

to become inclusive. Extractive institutions are normally the feature of

monarchy, feudal system, political or military dictatorships, fascism,

socialism and communism. Capitalist societies that are not fairly capitalist,

or where crony capitalism prevails, may also lead to extractive institutions.

Inclusive institutions are the opposite of the above. Their characteristics

include: encouragement of investments; harnessing the power of markets by

better allocation of resources; allowing entry of more efficient firms; ease

of starting businesses and provision of finance for them; and generating

broader participation in the economy through education and ease of entry

for new entrants. Growth under inclusive institutions involves both creative

destruction (replacement of the old methods, technology, industries by new)

and investment in technology.

Inclusive institutions are not compatible with socialism, communism

and feudal societies, or with dictatorships and monarchies. Only a society

with competitive capitalism is capable of having inclusive institutions.

INDIA A FIRST-WORLD COUNTRY BY 1980?

Yes, certainly. Extrapolating the time it took Singapore, South Korea

and Taiwan to become first-world countries by adopting competitive

capitalism, and the time it took West Germany and Japan to rise from the

ashes of the Second World War by adopting capitalist economy, it seems

reasonable that India would have been a prosperous, first-rate, first-world

country by 1980 had it too adopted competitive capitalism and befriended

the West.

Unfortunately for the crores of starving Indians and millions of others

who had great hopes for themselves, their families and the nation after

independence, Nehru guided India into a poverty-and-misery-perpetuating

socialistic-bureaucratic black-hole. His descendants, Indira and Rajiv

Gandhi, by doing much more of the same, made the situation worse. UPA-I

and II, by part reverting to the Nehru-Indira disastrous ways, have reversed

the Narsimha Rao–Vajpayee upward trend.

“UNLESS PEOPLE CHANGE... CAN’T PROGRESS!” ARGUMENT

“People are like that… Unless people change… Unless the society

improves,... Unless the society takes active interest... nothing would

change… Politics is but a reflection of the society...” goes another

argument.

However, there is little evidence to show that the prosperous countries

have become prosperous thanks not to the competence of its leaders, but to

its amorphous public and civil society which suddenly decided to improve

itself and take active interest in the well-being of the nation. There is no

evidence to show that it was not Lee Kuan Yew and his band of competent

leaders, but the suddenly awakened common Singaporeans, who, by

themselves, took Singapore to such heights. Yes, good leaders choose

competent teams, inspire people, motivate them and take the nation ahead

with their cooperation; but it is rare that general public by itself, without a

competent leadership, transforms a nation. India’s tragedy has been a lack

of genuinely competent leadership. Our so-called great leaders were really

Lilliputs.

Common man is busy earning his or her livelihood. They are working

on their chosen vocations and thus contributing to the society. They have

outsourced supply of water, electricity and other utilities to companies at an

agreed payment. Similarly, they have outsourced development of the nation

and maintenance of towns, villages, cities, provision of security, and so on

to elected politicians and appointed bureaucrats and technocrats. Each of

them, whether a politician or a bureaucrat or a technocrat, is getting paid by

the public (indirectly through taxes) to perform its allocated work. Just as

each member of the public is doing its job (as a banker or an IT professional

or a factory worker, and so on), so also each of its (indirectly) appointed

persons (a politician or a bureaucrat or a technocrat) ought to do his or her

work. It is because these appointed or elected politicians and babus, whose

cost is borne by the public, are failing to perform their tasks that the nation

is going to dogs. Hence, it is illogical to blame the society or public. Of

course, having elected or appointed these politicians and babus, it is the

duty of the electing/appointing authority—the general public—to take them

to task for non-performance and ensure they serve them and do their

allocated task.

SPURIOUS REASONS FOR INDIA’S FAILURE

Why has India failed? There are any number of spurious

reasons: problem of national character; people not being hard-working; lack

of discipline; corruption; colonial baggage; democracy, which is “soft”—

what is needed is dictatorship, preferably military dictatorship. Those who

advance such pleas should be asked: “Why was the economy doing

relatively much better after 1993? Had the lazy of the old days suddenly

became very hard-working? Had the national character changed for the

better? Were people suddenly more disciplined? Why the Indian software

professionals proved themselves to be highly competent and hard-

working?” The real reason for the woes had nothing to do with those

spurious factors. It was a plain, bad, borrowed Nehruvian economic model

of socialism that did us in. There was a brisk progress even with marginal

liberalisation.

UNLESS “PEOPLE WITH CHARACTER”, CAN’T TAKE OFF!

So goes the plea of many. Including that of the organisation devoted to

“character building”, and which claims monopoly on patriotism, on “what

is good for India”, and on prescriptions for setting the country right.

These advocates of “character building” need to be asked: “Has the

Indian character changed for the good or for the worse during the last 66

years after independence? Their answer would mostly be: it has changed for

the worse. If so, where is the guarantee it would improve in the future. And,

what if the character continues to remain the same for the next 1000 years?

Is India then doomed for another millennium?”

Among the best cities in the world are several from Australia, which is

now a first-rate, first-world country. It has no great civilisational heritage.

Nor can it boast of “character” that has propelled it to where it is now. Their

“character” heritage comprises murderers, rapists, dacoits, thieves, debtors,

fraudsters, and the like, who were herded in ships in Britain and brought to

Australia to undergo their jail terms. January 26 is celebrated as Australia

Day, because in January 1788, eleven ships packed with convicts from

Britain landed at Botany Bay in Sydney leading to the formation of the

colony of New South Wales in Australia.

Priests, reformers and character-builders did not land in Australia to

uplift the characters of the settler-convicts who made Australia their home.

However, Australia dramatically progressed despite the “bad” characters

and despite the absence of “character-builders”. Why? How? That’s what

one must try to understand, and apply the lessons learnt to India, where

applicable, rather than advancing silly pet theories like “requirements of

character”. Competitive capitalism lies at the root of their prosperity. They

never touched socialism even with a long pole.

Lee Kuan Yew and his band of competent leaders of Singapore were not

“Character-Builders”. They didn’t have that luxury of time, nor did they

believe in those crazy notions. They knew what mattered was forward-

looking economic policies and good governance. They therefore focussed

on implementing solid competitive capitalism, coupled with developing

well-paid, merit-driven and competent bureaucracy.

In the process of building and enhancing competitive capitalism, and

with increasing prosperity and peace both in Singapore and Australia, the

“character” automatically “improved”! It is well to remember that character

is also shaped by economic condition. You can’t have millions in hunger

and poverty and in wretched condition and with little to look forward to,

and expect people to develop “good character”!

WHAT IS REQUIRED IS “THE SPIRIT OF SACRIFICE”!

Not true.

It would suffice to quote Ayn Rand:

“America’s abundance was created not by public sacrifices to ‘the

common good,’ but by the productive genius of free men who

pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own

private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America’s

industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages

and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with

every scientific discovery or technological advance—and thus the

whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering,

every step of the way.”

Said Adam Smith in ‘The Wealth of Nations’: “It is not from the

benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our

dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

“SCIENTIFIC” SOCIALISM A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS!

Theory of Non-Affluent Society

Marxism and socialism were something Nehru was sold out on since the

1920s, wrote approvingly about in his books, advocated vigorously all

through, and, unfortunately for India, implemented it post-independence in

his own Nehruvian way.

This is what Nehru said in his presidential address at the Lucknow

session of the Congress in 1936:

“I am convinced that the only key to the solution of the world’s

problems and of India’s problems lies in socialism, and when I use

this word I do so not in a vague humanitarian way but in the

scientific, economic sense. Socialism is, however, something even

more than an economic doctrine; it is a philosophy of life and as

such also it appeals to me. I see no way of ending the poverty, the

vast unemployment, the degradation and the subjection of the Indian

people except through socialism. That involves vast and

revolutionary changes in our political and social structure, the

ending of vested interests in land and industry, as well as the feudal

and autocratic Indian States system. That means the ending of

private property, except in a restricted sense, and the replacement of

the present profit system by a higher ideal of co-operative service. It

means ultimately a change in our instincts and habits and desires. In

short, it means a new civilisation, radically different from the

present capitalist order. Some glimpse we can have of this new

civilisation in the territories of the U.S.S.R. Much has happened

there which has pained me greatly and with which I disagree, but I

look upon that great and fascinating unfolding of a new order and a

new civilization as the most promising feature of our dismal age. If

the future is full of hope it is largely because of Soviet Russia and

what it has done, and I am convinced that, if some world

catastrophe does not intervene, this new civilisation will spread to

other lands and put an end to the wars and conflicts which

capitalism feeds... Socialism is thus for me not merely an economic

doctrine which I favour; it is a vital creed which I hold with all my

head and heart...”{URL28}

Nehru stuck to his position on socialism and communism despite the

increasing evidence of their global failure, and the immense misery and

totalitarianism they brought about. And, despite irrationally and

unscientifically ignoring the facts and evidence, he flaunted himself as of a

rational and scientific temperament.

For the context of this book, we will use leftism, socialism, scientific

socialism, communism, Marxism and socialistic state interchangeably to

mean dominance of the state, pubic and state sector at the commanding

heights of the economy, predominant state controls of the economy and

means of production, over-regulated bureaucratic state, mai-baap Sarkar

and lesser or marginal role for the private sector and individuals. We are not

implying socialism or socialistic state to mean a welfare state or a state

engaged in social justice and equality, because as per actual global

experience such a socialistic state as just defined by us is neither capable of

ensuring general welfare nor social justice nor equality.

Marxists call their socialism scientific socialism, as if the self-assigned,

self-adulatory adjective scientific is sufficient to testify to it being scientific

—correct; however preposterous it might be from a genuine scientific

angle, where the litmus test is the real practical proof. Mere dialectics of

self-serving arguments and logic does not result in truth! Marxism as a

science or as an alternate economic thought for a nation to build on has

miserably failed—it has globally been proven wrong both in theory and in

practice.

Those who do not genuinely understand science or scientific-methods

are taken-in by mere allusion to something as scientific. Many became

Marxists because being so implied being scientific-spirited, rational,

progressive, pro-poor intellectual, aligned to the forces of history! Rather

than being aligned to the forces of history or being on the right side of it, to

the dismay of the Marxists, the unfolding history proved them to be on the

wrong side; and their “science”—“scientific” socialism—turned out to be

an alchemy!

The capitalist economic thought, the capitalist societies and the

associated democratic system themselves evolved and adapted since the

time of Marx in such a way that they not only brought unprecedented

prosperity to the concerned nations, they also significantly uplifted the

status of the masses—falsifying, in the process, many of the foundations

and assumptions of Marx.

Of course, that doesn’t lessen the genius of Marx. He contributed to the

economic thought, the political thought, the social science and the

knowledge of the evolution of societies and religion in a very major and a

tremendously impactful way. Not just the converted, the others too were not

left untouched by his thought. Writes John Kenneth Galbraith in ‘The

Affluent Society’: “Marx profoundly affected those who did not accept his

system.” Perhaps, the evolution of capitalism itself was affected by his

thought—becoming more inclusive. Writes Galbraith further: “In part this

was the result of the breath-taking grandeur of Marx’s achievement as an

exercise in social theory. No one before, or for that matter since, had taken

so many strands of human behaviour and woven them together...”

It doesn’t matter if his theory or line of reasoning has proved to be

partly or largely erroneous. Current capitalist economic thought is not

exactly what Adam Smith propounded. That doesn’t lessen Adam Smith’s

contribution. Certain conclusions of Ricardo and Malthus have proved to be

wrong. But, they helped bring focus on important economic aspects. The

current atomic model is not what Rutherford proposed. Newton’s laws of

motion have been superseded, or rather refined, by the Einstein’s theory.

But, that doesn’t make them less of a scientist.

In science, society, economics and indeed all disciplines knowledge

evolves, concepts change, new theories replace old ones in the light of new

experiments, experiences and knowledge gained. To be scientific is to keep

an open mind on things, to be willing to change, to be ready to jettison the

old in the light of new evidence, and to go by actual practical results.

The quest for justice, the empathy for the poor and the deprived, and the

idealism that drove Marx and Engels has to be acknowledged, respected

and emulated. However, if Marxism was indeed “scientific”, then to elevate

it to a dogma or a religion that can’t be questioned is itself unscientific. The

proponents of “scientific” socialism have not been scientific enough to

factor in the changes since the death of Marx, and stick to the dogma. Sadly,

Marx himself, once he had built up his arguments and theory, chose to

ignore many facts and statistics that had come to light during his own

lifetime, for they interfered with his constructs. He clung to only those facts

that fitted-in with his theory. His method itself was therefore unscientific.

Further, Marx didn’t elaborate on the nature of society and organisation

that would replace capitalism, and how it would be managed, except talking

vaguely about the “dictatorship of the proletariat”—without allowing for

the possibility of the Frankenstein it would unleash, and the surreal “1984”

it would beget.

Practice Proves the Theory Wrong

For anything to be scientifically correct, it has to be proved truly and

convincingly in practice, without a shadow of doubt. Till the same is done,

it remains merely a conjecture, a hypothesis, a theory. Has the so-called

scientific socialism or Marxism proved successful anywhere in the world in

practice? No.

Facts, figures, statistics and ground-level experiences of various

countries prove that all brands of leftist politics—Communist, Socialist,

Fabian, Nehruvian, and so on—are inherently incapable of delivering

anything positive for any nation or for its poor. In fact, they have actually

been at the root of poverty, want and stagnation.

Dismal fate of all nations that went socialist proves the point. Take

USSR. It claimed to be following scientific socialism or Marxism. But,

what were its practical results? It drew an iron-curtain so that no one got to

see the disaster: the wide-spread poverty and famine and suppression of

human rights. Had things been really good, why would USSR be so

secretive about it, and not let those interested—journalists, writers,

academicians, researchers, politicians, sociologists, and general public—

have unrestricted access and see the state of affairs for themselves,

especially when they wanted other nations to emulate them, and go

communist! Why only guided tours, under strict supervision? Whom were

they fooling?

Perhaps people like Nehru. One guided tour in 1920s, and Nehru

returned fully sold out, like school-boys taken on guided tours! Subsequent

guided-tours of both Nehru and his daughter post-independence to the

USSR, and both were re-sold!! Ultimately the USSR fell apart, and all its

parts are still struggling to throw away the bad old days of communism.

Nehru wrote in ‘Discovery of India’:

“…I had no doubt that the Soviet Revolution had advanced human

society by a great leap and had lit a bright flame which could not be

smothered, and that it had laid the foundations for that new

civilization towards which the world could advance.”{JN}

Contrast this with what Bertrand Russel had to say after his visit to

Russia:

“…the time I spent in Russia was one of continually increasing

nightmare. I have said in print what, on reflection, appeared to me to

be the truth, but I have not expressed the sense of utter horror which

overwhelmed me while I was there. Cruelty, poverty, suspicion,

prosecution formed the very air we breathed. Our conversations

were continually spied upon… There was a hypocritical pretence of

equality… I felt that everything that I valued in human life was

being destroyed in the interest of a glib and narrow philosophy, and

that in the process untold misery was being inflicted upon many

millions of people…”{BNS/191-2}

One is not likely to come across a more hilarious indictment of

communism than what the author Tim Harford says in ‘Adapt’. First, the

background. We learn by understanding why and how a thing works. We

also learn by understanding why a thing does not work. The normal method

is the former, the latter being an add-on: understand the normal working,

and as an additional learning, examine also the abnormal working. In the

field of neuroscience, however, the study of the abnormal is the normal

method of learning. Observe the abnormal behaviour and determine which

part of the brain is responsible for it—that’s the way to understand the

brain. As VS Ramachandran, whom Richard Dawkins calls “the Marco

Polo of neuroscience”, says in his book ‘The Tell-Tale Brain’: “My

approach to these questions has been to study patients with damage or

genetic quirks in different parts of their brains that produce bizarre effects

on their minds or behaviour.”

Reverting to Tim Harford in ‘Adapt’:

“The Soviet Union is to economics what Phineas Gage [a brain-

injury victim] is to neuroscience. Neuroscientists study patients with

damage to specific regions of the brain because their plight

illuminates how the brain is ordinarily supposed to work. In much

the same way, economists study dysfunctional economics when

attempting to figure out the secrets of healthy ones. It is of course

not a new insight that the Soviet system failed, but the unexpected

details of why it failed are often glossed over—and they hold an

important lesson...”

Ultimately the USSR fell apart, and all its parts are still struggling to

throw away the bad old days of communism. Millions died from hunger and

famine in Soviet Russia, yet the communist leadership did not have the

heart to save them by seeking help from outside, lest the outside world

became aware of the pathetic conditions. Same with China under Mao—

about 40 million perished in famines!

Country-wise unofficial estimates of the total number of persons who

perished thanks to communism, through man-made famines and state-terror,

as per The Black Book of Communism are: USSR–20 million, China–65

million, Cambodia–2 million, North Korea–2 million; the world-total being

around 100 million! Compare this with the estimate of Holocaust victims at

about 6 million, and total World War II military deaths of all countries put

together at about 25 million.

Take the case of East Germany: contrast it with the prosperity in West

Germany. Why the Berlin Wall ultimately fell? See the fate of the East-

European countries: Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, Bulgaria,

Romania. Consider the case of Albania under its Mao—Enver Hoxha. What

of Cuba under the "great" revolutionary, Fidel Castro: it is now desperately

trying to shed its socialistic past. Note the growing economy of Vietnam

after the gradual shedding of its communist policies. The terrible fate of

Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot—brought out so

chillingly in the movie, The Killing Fields! Appalling conditions in North

Korea: George Orwell’s “1984” continuing in the 21st century!

Take the example of the relatively recent red-hot socialist showman

given to mega posturing on the world stage, Hugo Chavez, the president of

Venezuela for the last 14 years, who succumbed to cancer on March 5,

2013. Called Commandante by his followers, he implemented several

populist measures—which he could afford thanks to the country’s oil-

wealth—to remain popular. But, what is the legacy of his 14-year socialist

revolution? Decline in oil-production, a severely dented economy,

dysfunctional state institutions and administration, and Caracas, its capital,

turning into one of the most dangerous cities in the world. An article by

Rory Carroll in The Economic Times, Mumbai of 7 March 2013,

reproduced from NYT, reads: “The once mighty factories of Ciudad

Guayana, an industrial hub...are rusting and wheezing, some shut, others at

half-capacity. Underinvestment and ineptitude hit hydropower stations and

the electricity grid, causing weekly blackouts that continue to darken cities,

fry electrical equipment, silence machinery and require de facto

rationing...Reckless money printing and fiscal policies triggered soaring

inflation, so much so that the currency, the bolivar, lost 90 percent of its

value since Chavez took office, and was devalued five times over a decade.

In another delusion, the currency had been renamed ‘el bolivar fuerte’, the

strong bolivar—an Orwellian touch. Harassment of privately owned farms

and chaotic administration of state-backed agricultural cooperatives hit food

production, compelling extensive imports, which stacked up so fast

thousands of tonnes rotted at ports...Politicisation and neglect crippled the

state-run oil company PDVSA’s core task—drilling—so that production

slumped. Populist subsidies reduced the cost of gasoline to $1 a tank,

perhaps the world’s lowest price of petrol, but cost the state untold billions

in revenue while worsening traffic congestion and air pollution...A new

elite with government connections, the “boligarchs,” manipulated

government contracts and the web of price and currency controls to finance

their lavish lifestyles...As Venezuela atrophied, he found some refuge in

blaming others, notably the “squealing pigs” of the private sector...” Of

course, this is not to overlook the blatant exploitation of Venezuela by the

West earlier—it is only to highlight that even if Chavez can be credited with

fittingly rebuffing the West, socialist policies implemented by him proved

to be no panacea.

There is not a single example of a country which prospered or whose

poor were better off under communism or socialism. The democratic

countries like the UK which were going downhill with their socialistic

policies did course correction under Thatcher and prospered. Near home,

see the unfortunate and the pathetic fate of India and its poor thanks to

India's socialistic policies, which are only gradually getting dismantled.

It is also worth noting that terror has always been a dominant factor in

communism. Besides, like the vandals of the olden times, they destroyed

precious cultural treasures. Pol Pot dismantled the Phnom Penh cathedral

and allowed the jungle to take over the Angkor Wat temples. In China

priceless treasures were smashed or set on fire by the Red Guards.

We know how communists wrecked West Bengal during their 34-year

rule! Those who still advocate socialistic policies do so not because they are

innocent about these facts, but because it suits them politically, so what if

those policies actually amount to being anti-progress and anti-poor.

Jayaprakash Narayan had remarked:

“History will soon prove that Communism, instead of being the

final flowering of human civilisation, was a temporary aberration of

the human mind, a brief nightmare to be soon forgotten.

Communism, as it grew up in Russia and is growing up in China

now, represented the darkness of the soul and imprisonment of the

mind, colossal violence and injustice. Whoever thinks of the future

of the human race in these terms is condemning man to eternal

perdition.”{SS/17}{SD/79}

Thanks to his half-baked ideas, Nehru bequeathed to India a toxic

legacy: a toxic political (dynastic and undemocratic), economic

(socialistic), industrial (inefficient and burdensome public and state sector),

agricultural (neglected and starved), geographic (most borders insecure),

administrative (incompetent and corrupt babudom), historical (Marxist and

Leftist distortion), educational (elitist, and no universal literacy), and

cultural (no pride in Indian heritage) legacy.

WHY THINGS NOT WORKED OUT BEFORE INDEPENDENCE?

One finds it immensely distressing that while we succeeded in doing all

the wrong or mostly wrong things after independence be it the socialistic

economic policy or the external security matters or internal security; we

failed to carry through any of the needed reforms or rectifications or

restructuring be it babudom or police or criminal-justice system or our

outdated laws or our past or contemporary history or our slavish colonial

culture. What is amazing is that Nehru, and after him, his dynasty, had a

field day doing as he (or they) pleased unconstrained by any policy

constraints. Hence, the baffling question. Why had the freedom-fighting

greats and the Congress not studied each important segment in sufficient

detail and why were they not ready with a blueprint well before the actual

independence.

They could have formed separate study/expert groups on policies on

economy, finance, transport infra-structure like railways, airways,

waterways and roads, power and energy sector, mining, environment, heavy

industries, small and medium industries, village industries and handicrafts,

trade and commerce, agriculture, allied-agricultural activities, literacy,

education at various levels, specialisation in arts, medicine, engineering,

science and other fields, research, historical research and recording of

correct past and contemporary history, industrial and agricultural training

and research, India’s borders with neighbours and their status and steps to

be taken after independence to firm up borders and ensure peace, foreign

relations, defence and external security, internal security and firmer

integration of all states, language policy, popularisation of Sanskrit,

compulsory English for all, massive mass-campaigns across India on

sanitation, hygiene, garbage-disposal, keeping environment clean, healthy

and garbage-free, and mass-campaigns to root out casteism and

communalism, and so on.

The study/expert groups should have visited other countries, particularly

the prosperous ones like the US (unlike the conducted tours of the USSR

designed to impress Nehru, and bias him into copycat Indian disaster), and

studied what could be applied in the Indian context. They should have

started building foreign relations with various countries, particularly the

US, as part of the independence movement. It would have helped the

freedom movement itself. The exercise would have thrown up many experts

in diverse fields who could have steered India right after independence. It

would have greatly helped mitigate the risk of letting only one person like

Nehru have his way.

The list given above is long, and the scope vast. But, the freedom-

fighters and the Congress had all the time in the world for it. Their major

agitations were only once-in-a-decade affairs: early 1920s, early 1930s and

early 1940s. There were long gaps between the major agitations to do the

suggested studies and to discuss and thrash out the details. Even in jails

during the agitations, they had plenty of time. Some did spend time reading

and writing. Some experimented with home remedies and food and fasting.

The remaining passed the time in various other ways. However, no set of

individuals or groups engaged themselves on any of the vital matters

enumerated above. You have volumes full of Gandhi’s writings, Nehru-

Gandhi correspondence, and voluminous writings by others. But, hardly

anything worthwhile on what really mattered for the independent India! So

irresponsible, and so surprising! What was the result? Post-independence,

whatever Nehru fancied, he did, and we know the result!

SOCIALISM BENEFITS ONLY THE VESTED INTERESTS.

Socialism and leftism is something which benefits large sections of

vested interests, but not the intended beneficiaries. Why do poor, who can

ill-afford, prefer private schools to government schools, private hospitals to

government hospitals? They know that this socialist claptrap is for the

babus and politicians to make money, not to help them. Communism and

socialism assume the State as a kind, empathetic mai-baap, meant to do

good for the people; when the experience and the practical reality is that

very often it is the State—through its agency of politicians, babus and

police—that is the biggest exploiter and mafia around.

WHY SOCIALISM REMAINS POPULAR?

It remains popular because it has very smartly been projected as pro-

poor. Who popularise it to be so? Of course, the ones who have vested

interest in it—the politicians, the babus and the leftist intellectuals, who

have spawned the academe, the establishment, the NGOs and the media.

What has been benefitting them, they publicise it as benefitting the masses.

And they succeed!

PREDOMINANCE OF LEFTIST CLAPTRAP

It is India’s tragedy that rational, bold, no-nonsense, rightist leadership

and influential intellectual class that unapologetically supports competitive

capitalism is absent. It is a crucial handicap in tackling poverty and in

India’s rise to a prosperous first-world nation.

It is high time the general voting public was educated to realise that

leftism, socialism and sops would take them nowhere and would condemn

them further to a life of want and misery; and that the jholawallahs, like the

religious and communal fundamentalists and the casteists, belong to the

past, and have no relevance for modern India.

Sadly the leftist “intellectual” brand and the leftist politics predominate

in India. It’s a vicious cycle. Leftist/socialist vote-catching-sops create

poverty and misery. In turn, poverty and misery fuel further socialism and

sops. The worse you get, the more leftist and socialist you become!

Practically all regional parties (SP, RJD, JDU, Trinamool Congress, ...)

profess to be socialists. The Congress is anyway an opportunist socialist

and “electoral secular” party. Even the BJP had once professed to be a

Gandhian socialist party. AAP, a young party, with many young

professional faces, was expected to be different. But, they plan to be more

socialist that all the other parties put together!

Is it that Indian intellectuals and politicians—both young and old—lack

courage, and want only to play the safe, populist way, and socialism comes

in handy.

That’s why when people say why does one have to hark back to Nehru-

Indira, who are long dead, one has to assert that their malinfluence still

prevails, and afflicts intellectuals too.

DEMOCRACY AND SOCIALISM: ARE THEY COMPATIBLE?

Many say they don’t like capitalism, but they want democracy. Many

talk of democratic socialism. But what is the historical origin of

“democracy”? Did socialism give rise to democracy? Did communism give

rise to democracy? No. Historically, all socialist and communist societies

have curbed freedom, democracy being a far cry. Did a feudal system or a

monarchical system or a dictatorship give rise to democracy? No.

It was the mercantile-industrial capitalism that led to democracy.

Democracy and capitalism go together. Competitive capitalism needs

democracy to thrive. Vice versa, democracy can thrive where competitive

capitalism exists. Of course, vitiated forms of capitalism, like crony

capitalism, can go along with dictatorships and oligarchies.

However, socialism and communism, where the state dominates and

predominantly controls the means of production, can’t have real democracy,

because true democracy is unsuited to those systems. That’s why when

India went more socialist under Indira resulting in difficult economic

conditions, she had to wind up democracy and declare Emergency.

WHAT TO FOLLOW? SOCIALISM, CAPITALISM, GANDHIISM...

Most Indian political parties profess to be socialists, and presumably

want some kind of socialism. Maoists in the red-districts of India and their

“intellectual” supporters want Maoism/communism. Gandhiites would like

Gandhian Gram Swaraj. Some say, “neither Marx not Market”, but some

form of “Ram Rajya”. Ultra-nationalists want something uniquely Indian.

Some ignoramuses would even like to go back to the pre-independence

days of the British! Then, there are the capitalists.

As many groups, as many systems. If this does not work, try that.

Funnily, no group poses questions relevant to arriving at a satisfactory

solution. For example, which system has triumphed in the world? Let’s not

be frogs-in-the-well, let’s look around in the world, let’s look at other

countries. Let’s check which countries are prosperous and rich and why?

How they achieved that? Which of them also have freedom and democracy,

and which don’t, and why? Which countries are struggling like India and

why? Which countries are poor and why are they so?

If one examines the above, one finds that socialist or communist

countries are invariably poor or struggling or not so well off. China

progressed very fast after it junked Maoism/communism and adopted

competitive capitalist practices. Certain countries are rich on account of

mineral wealth (like the Arabs) but their people have no freedom, and are

ruled by kings, monarchs, dictators or oligarchies. The rich countries,

whether of the West or Asia or elsewhere, like the US, the UK, France,

Germany, Canada, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New

Zealand, have invariably both competitive capitalism and democracy. This

being the case, does it not make sense for India to also adopt competitive

capitalism. In fact, India has no alternative if wants to rise from its grinding

poverty, become prosperous and join the first-world.

As for people advocating Gandhiism or some form of “Indianism” or

some other prescription, it would be good to ponder over these questions:

To purchase a car, does one go for a tested model of a reputed brand of car,

or does one choose a car merely by its listed features, ignoring the fact of its

not having been well tested on the road? Does one take that risk? However,

you don’t mind crores being guinea pigs in your experiments with

Gandhiism or some form of “Indianism” or some other prescription! Even if

it has to be given a chance, try Gandhiism in a district, and monitor the

results. It is another matter that if any reasonable person were to read

Gandhi’s economic prescriptions that he wrote in “Hind Swaraj” in 1909

and later, he would get a shock.

CAPITALISM EVOLVED ORGANICALLY,

OTHERS ARE ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCTS.